Preparations for public hearings for the Coastal Zone Management Plan are underway with grounds being cleared and overhead water-proof pandals taking shape. With registrations trickling in, the hearings could throw up a logistical nightmare against the backdrop of the existing Covid protocol. While giant screens, mobile toilets and chairs are expected to be in place, the massive turnout, expected to cross 1,000 at each venue, could be tough to handle.
The hearings will be exempted from Section 144 of the CrPC, and the Collector has allayed fears against unleashing the National Security Act against speakers. However, the bigger challenge will be to enforce protocol, maintain social distancing, and ensure face masks are used. In an emotionally charged environment where patriotic sentiments towards the State, its coastal boundaries and identity are expected to be overwhelming, the authorities and law and order machinery will have a job on their hands.
The government, acting on the directives of the NGT, has facilitated participation in multiple ways. There are options available for those seeking participation in the hearings. People can submit a physical form, there is an online entry, and for the late entrants, a window of spot registrations will be kept open for a limited time. But the catch is, this hearing is going to be non-stop, making it a painful test of patience and perseverance for each registered participant as they would be made to wait for their unscheduled turn to speak.
Plain logic shows that the hearing could run into multiple days “ two or more if all speakers turn up and are allowed to speak. This may not be practical. In fact, instead of holding a non-stop hearing, the authorities should have spread this exercise across multiple days or sessions because there are no restrictions on this aspect. The current system only encourages a large assembly of people at all times instead of fragmented sessions.
On the flip side, the monsoon is expected to gain momentum in July, and heavy showers may act as a deterrent for many who want to place their views before the authorities. The government could have made amends for the mistakes of the past and moved NGT seeking more time because of the possibility of inclement weather standing in the way of the salutary mandate. When there is already an inordinate delay in proceeding with the plan, a small change in the date would not hurt anyone.
The crux of the NGT directive was to uphold the spirit of these hearings, and it was the government's responsibility to tell the green tribunal about the monsoon hurdle, rather than waiting for petitioners to rush back with another plea.
While the outreach is visible, other areas are questionable and suggest that this is not going to be a freewheeling exercise. The NGT bench has held that sections of people and aggrieved citizens have to get a reasonable opportunity. There are options available, but the authorities have other ideas. There is still a question mark over the spirit of the hearing.
